Cold shower on victors' spoils

Page Tools

It was hardly surprising that confirmation the Coalition will
control the Senate from next July should spark rushes of blood to
the heads of several senior members of the Federal Government.
Jubilant at their election win on October 9 various Liberal players
seized on opportunities to exercise the Government's political
muscle - unprecedented in more than two decades - to prohibit
free-choice abortions, compulsory voting and trade union donations
to the ALP. It took longer than was necessary but the Prime
Minister's intervention in tempering these excessive legislative
ambitions is welcome nonetheless. It was not that the issues are
unworthy of vigorous prosecution, but they are not reflected in the
Government's mandate from the people.

And concentration on them is not consistent with John Howard's
election-night pledge to use his fourth term to govern for all
Australians, regardless of how they voted. Mr Howard's emphasis on
a softly, softly approach, therefore, acknowledges his appreciation
that the blessing from voters is precious and can easily be
fractured.

It is not as if the Government is without a long queue of
promises demanding attention. There are the obvious challenges of
further labour market deregulation as a driver for stronger
employment growth. The economy continues to burn but there are
suggestions that revenue will go flat just as the burdens of an
ageing population gather weight. A prudently regulated but wholly
privatised Telstra will allow it to shed the growth restrictions
imposed by its hybrid ownership. For too long the tax-welfare
imbroglio has denied incentive for too many to shift from handout
to low-paid jobs.

These are just some of the tasks confronting the fourth Howard
Government. Undoubtedly, the Governor-General, Michael Jeffery,
will enunciate an expanded list when he officially opens the 41st
Parliament in Canberra today. However, it is unlikely to be unduly
contaminated by proposals which remained the private musings of
individual ministers until the election had passed. That should
consolidate the Government's political capital.

The Opposition's immediate prospects are far gloomier. Mr
Howard's attempts at even-handedness are unlikely to extend across
the parliamentary chamber because, in politics, the temptation for
rubbing salt in the wounds of the vanquished is irresistible. And
Labor is deeply wounded, having compounded its electoral reversals
with the departure to the back bench of some of its more
experienced hands. Students of politics, therefore, will be
examining two very different political dynamics.

Mark Latham, the Opposition Leader, is about to discover just
how tough politics can get. While stonewalling the Government, Mr
Latham must rebuild an Opposition racked with disunity and sapped
of morale. He must recalibrate Labor's policy so the Opposition
regains relevance and he must show he has a constructive
contribution to make.

Against all this, the selection of David Hawker as the new
speaker might seem a sideshow. It is more than that, however,
because Parliament is the manifestation of the people's will and
its conduct reflects their choices. It is not an institution where
winners should be allowed to take all, where they set their rules
to extract maximum advantage. Even though victors get the spoils,
Parliament must ventilate responsible contributions from all sides
so that ideas are well tested and decision-makers are exposed to
the disparate concerns of a diverse nation.

Sustaining our ocean advantage

Australia's richness in natural resources has been its economic
long suit for nearly two centuries. The ride has not been steady
for each sector and fortune has fluctuated, but agriculture, mines,
gas fields, forestry and fisheries have provided the bases of our
affluence. The challenge has been in keeping these industries
sustainable - again, with varied results. The coincidence of two
events, each unrelated in specifics but each affecting
sustainability of Australia's $2.3 billion commercial fishing,
therefore, goes beyond the immediate interests of industry players
and their customers.

The first is the revelation that sea urchins - thorny ocean
inhabitants that take their name from the Latin for hedgehog - are
being grown at Macquarie University with a view to determining
which feeding method optimises their economic worth. The second is
the move by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority - the
federal agency responsible for nearly 9 million square kilometres
of fishing areas - to cut catch quotas of six fish species.

Here is the link. Sea urchins, which sell live for $9 each in
overseas markets where their roe is considered a delicacy, are in
global decline because of over-harvesting. The catch quota cuts are
also due to heavy fishing. If stocks do not get a chance to
recover, the six species may be fished out. Apart from the
immediate impact on those who catch and those who buy these
species, the issue is whether other methods protect them
better.

Aquaculture is claiming a rising share of Australia's fish
catch. In 2002-03, it was worth $743 million, about a third of
total production, but the industry calculates this value could
triple over the next five years. The Australian Bureau of
Agricultural and Resource Economics says the greatest aquaculture
potential is in high-value species, but potential investors and
lenders regard the sector as risky.

That is why research is so important. Jane Williamson, a marine
biologist, believes her sea urchin project could pave the way for a
multi-million dollar aquaculture industry second only to South
Australian tuna farming. If she is right, she will have spearheaded
yet another Australian achievement in diversifying production to
help meet world needs and to boost this country's economic
competitiveness.